Munich - Road Map Parallels Run Deep
by Professor Eugene Narrett
“We must not delude small nations into thinking that they will be protected from aggression…” — Sir John Simon, London, 2/21/38
Many people have noticed a terrible resemblance between the way Britain sacrificed the Czechs to Germany in 1938 and what the Oslo-Road Map plan has been doing to Israel. Ariel Sharon stated in 2002 that “Israel will not be Czechoslovakia,” a rare moment of bravery for which the vassal was rebuked promptly. Shortly afterwards, he returned to substantiating the parallel.
Still, few people realize how deep the comparisons go, how alarming they are and how they illuminate the true goals of British policymakers, — and their indifference to collateral damage. The record shows that the British are quite willing to accept war and destruction of assets (so long as most of the losses are born by others) and then have others pay and labor to rebuild what has been ruined largely through their own global designs, their relentless pursuit of Atlantic Union and World Federation.
Let us examine British diplomacy re Europe during the 1930s, making pertinent comparisons, predictions and prescriptions for today’s Middle East. 
Just as betrayal of the Jewish National Home was bloodily underway by March 1920 so the British policy of appeasement of Germany was in place by 1920. Dr. Carroll Quigley divides this policy into three stages: 1920-34; 1934-7; 1937-40:* that’s right; the British continued to appease Hitler through the first eight months of the war. The pattern of assisting a voracious enemy, pretending incapacity to resist, and demanding crippling “compromises” via “negotiations” (then as now) from allies distinguished British policy during this period.
The Romantic penchant for emotionalizing values and exculpating criminals had been absorbed by 20th century mass media and politicians to psychoanalyze maniacal enemies and offer them therapeutic, fiscal and military emoluments. The English led this trend now familiar as political correctness. Noteworthy is a speech by General Jan C. Smuts of the Round Table in 1934 which demanded that Europe “set free the captive and obsessed soul” of Germany from its “inferiority complex” so that the world could “reap a rich reward of tranquility, security, and returning prosperity” (267). Even James A. Baker III and France’s top officials are not as fulsome about Iran and Co. as was this instance of international State interests cloaked in therapeutic pieties.
As early as 1923 the Round Table (the name’s allusion to King Arthur hints at the fear of impending self-destruction said to “haunt” Rhodes and his circle; it may be seen in the androgynous aristocratic starvelings of Pre-Raphaelite painting) called for the removal of French troops from the Rhineland, the fertile, ethnic German area west of the Rhine. With its troops occupying the Rhineland, and German troops banned from the industrial Ruhr and Saar valleys on the eastern bank France could preempt any German strike. Yet speaking for the Milner group, John Dove, editor of the Round Table 1921-34 urged this disaster on France, England’s ally. Dove also was the proponent of a British-dependent Arab Federation from Iran to the Mediterranean that would include all of “Palestine.”
British nationalists pursued such policies because they were in fact internationalists whose main goal since 1877 was the absorption of America into a British-led Oceanic federation that would bring freedom, social welfare and peace to the world, they said.
The Treaty of Versailles (1919) called for French occupation of the Rhineland till 1935; Britain persuaded the French to exit by 1930. They then began pressing for Germany to be given equality of arms with Britain, superiority to the French and pointedly told the latter that Britain did not feel bound to put troops on the continent to help anyone. This was a virtual invitation for Germany to re-militarize the Rhineland, a plan that English diplomats like Lords Lothian, Halifax, Austen and Neville Chamberlain made explicit to Hitler on several occasions (268 passim). At the same time, Britain vigorously undercut French attempts to include Russia in any anti-aggression pacts that might deter German expansion. Why? Because another key British aim was to build Germany up, even under Hitler to, 1) scare America into a lasting alliance; 2) unify the continent under Germany as a bulwark against Soviet Russia; 3) eliminate the Jews who might otherwise enter “Palestine” and be brash enough to demand sovereignty.
Top British leaders made clear to Hitler that they wanted him to absorb Eastern Europe, openly supporting his demand for lebensraum but urged that he proceed slowly and by negotiations that would “soften up” the will to resist of the intended victims and avoid political defeat for his British enablers. The parallels of methods and goals to the Camp David-Oslo-Road Map process is plain: negotiation is not for peace but to soften up the targeted victims, nominally allies; to protract the destruction process so that the enablers suffer no electoral repercussions from their own people and to internationalize the crisis: the expulsion regime and policy must be saved at all costs. Thus the periodic tough talk of the Olmert group during and after the Hizbollah conflict of summer 2006…
The war of nerves against the French and the Czechs that the British pursued from 1930-9 has its parallel in Anglo-American and EU-UN “negotiations” with the PLO, Iraq, Iran, Hamas-Fatah and other jihadist groups in recent decades. As the process lengthens, terror is increased to render targets, including opinion at home, more pliable. Almost a year after Austria and then the Czechs had been offered on the altar of British imperial designs aligned with German supremacists, and four days before WW II broke, Neville Henderson, the ambassador to Berlin was offering Germany an alliance if only the Nazis would follow the soften-the-victim by negotiations route with Poland as they had with the Czechs. But by then the Germans considered the British to be “worms” not unlike jihadist attitudes toward their enablers when they ‘talk tough’ to stay in office. Call it the spoiled brat syndrome, globalized and fiercely armed.
Hitler was able to browbeat the Austrians into not resisting German invasion and ‘joining’ (Anschluss) by telling them, correctly that he had British support for his plans. On February 21, Sir John Simon declared, “we must not delude small nations into thinking they will be protected from aggression…” Shortly afterward Austria was gobbled up. When the French met with the British to discuss supporting the Czechs and thus stopping German expansionism, the British pressured PM Deladier to himself join in pressing the Czechs to submit. In parliament Philip Kerr, Lord Lothian wholesaled German excuses and rationales for resuming its place in the sun “and blamed all the disasters in Europe on America” (281): shades of our times, and again, like Smuts, Lothian used Nanny-State clichés to palliate Nazism as a “temporary and pathological state,” a comfortable position for those safe enough to take the long view.
It is interesting that leading British statesmen condemned the continued existence of Czechoslovakia as “almost the only racially heterogeneous state left in Europe.” The moral frame of reference has flipped over completely (multi-culturalism now is the prime good for western states, the better to “liquidate” all nations and create a world state) but the methods, hypocrisy and viciousness remain up front. “The best security for peace is that the world should be divided into zones,” first, “a new Federal unit built around the English-speaking nations… ultimately the commonwealth will be worldwide. Lionel Curtis, trustee of the Rhodes Scholarship Foundation, wrote the pompously titled Civitas Dei, published as the “Commonwealth of God” to promote this approach in America through the Council on Foreign Relations, its journal, Foreign Affairs, and the various publications promoting “Union” or “Atlantic Union” or “Union Now.” This Commonwealth of God would be an “international commonwealth” in which nations would “yield part of their sovereignty” to the collective, a goal the UN has been increasingly directed to pursue via regional pacts subject to little congressional control.**
Quigley offers a trenchant point made often by non-establishment commentators of our day: that appeasement does not lead to stability or peace but engenders in the mind of the enabled aggressors the appetite and belief that they can increase their demands (281).
The War on Terror is a form of appeasement; between its low-level chronic bloodshed and threats it mobilizes populations, justifies increasingly obtrusive security measures and oversight and feeds the appetite and expectations of terrorists.
One of his more startling revelations is that the first leader to demand German annexation of the Sudetenland, the heavily fortified Czech border areas was not Hitler but Neville Chamberlain, privately on May 10, 1938 and publicly, in a “calculated indiscretion” on September 7. As late as September 15, 1938 Hitler himself was demanding only self-determination for the region. With the “peace process” progressing too slowly for the British pipers, having previously warned the Czechs not to mobilize their forces they then demanded they do so. This, along with a compliant media helped to create war “terror” in the home population four weeks after the British had assured Goering and Hitler that Britain would not fight for the Czechs (285). The British people were assured that Czech sacrifice was the only way to bring “peace in our time.” Today they say Israeli surrenders or unilateral ceasefires are required ‘to end the cycle of violence.’
Another irony of this situation, which had Britain simply stayed out might well have precluded WW II is that the armed forces of Czechoslovakia were on a par with those of Germany (287-8). The Germans would have been hard pressed to defeat the Czechs alone much less the Czechs and French. Israel, similarly has or until recently had enormous military superiority to its hostile neighbors and could have totally defeated them, deflated jihad and precluded the war on terror — had American diplomats simply stayed out. But they do not want to stay out: they want negotiations to disarm the intended victim, in the case of Israel, through client politicians and parties committed to defeat they protract the crisis and make surrender inevitable. The Oceanic bloc wants to dismember Israel as “Chamberlain and his associates wanted to dismember Czechoslovakia.” This went so far that when highly placed Germans (including Chief of Staff Beck) plotting to assassinate Hitler that September pleaded with the British to stand firm, Chamberlain promptly flew to Hitler’s mountain retreat at Berchtesgaden effectively outing their plot and strengthening Hitler’s resolve to carve up and absorb the designated victim (288-90). For six more years various German groups plotted to assassinate Hitler and seek in vain for British assurances of help or at least non-belligerence. But the British wanted a big aggressive Germany to dominate the continent, attack Russia and bind America to their Atlantic Union. They succeeded in each case, — and they also got Hitler to get rid of the Jews for them so they could proceed toward the Arab Federation “with its front door on the Mediterranean” as promoted by John Dove and others from 1919 till today. And the shoah also assisted them in justifying a “world commonwealth” and Court. ***
Just as Israel has been blamed at every step of the peace process for being ‘stubborn’ so too in 1939 the Round Table had “severe criticism of the Czechs” for a host of problems including not dealing kindly enough with their minorities, — unlike the way for instance that Britain dealt with nations great and small. Sounding like Bill Clinton and many others, the Round Table group became vocal on “the reign of law between nations as the only way to prevent war” when the French alone could have crushed Hitler in 1935. But the British had their eye on the prize of global dominion as our diplomats have since.
As astonishing as this history is the Oslo-Road Map process has surpassed it. While the British diplomatic elite felt impelled (partly for political reasons) to declare, if not to wage war on Germany after it attacked Poland (rather than by gradually using diplomacy and threats as in Czech land) in recent decades in the Middle East the Anglo-American elites, not to mention the EU, Russia and UN seem to be ‘sisters of perpetual indulgence’ for jihadist violence against Jews and blatant, in your face breaking of every accord that is reached. This indicates the special place that crippling Israel and extracting its holiest sites has on the global agenda. Why, pray tell was the old city of Jerusalem made a site of pilgrimage and the capital of “Jordan” during the nineteen years the Arabs ruled it? The discrepancy helps reveal the true agenda of the process.
Quigley mentions that as a reward and inducement to more ‘good behavior,’ the British gave Hitler six million pounds in Czech gold they had for ‘safe keeping.’ This resembles the continued western flow of arms and money to jihadists targeting Israel, for now. It also is what may happen to the treasure that Jews in Israel and all over the world have created during the past three centuries in the Promised Land.
The lesson is that when diplomats domestic and foreign lure a small nation toward the path of “negotiations” with genocidal enemies, ignore them, strike hard and agree to join them on your own terms. The only winning option is the military one as McArthur, Patton, and Grant demonstrated.
_______________________________________
*Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (NY 1981). Page numbers in parenthesis refer to this text. The relevant section spans pages 265-303.
** Frank Aydelotte, Clarence Streit, and Christian Herter were major publicists of this trend in America. See James Perlow, Shadows of Power (1986), 66, 85-6, 95-6, 104, 142, 154. Quigley, 282-4
***Numerous texts demonstrate how information about the magnitude of the holocaust was used by the British and American diplomatic establishment to increasingly legalize an issue of war and reparations and to proselytize for the UN and World Court. See for example David Wyman (1998); Christopher Simpson (1995). Predictably it is the Jews of Israel who are targeted by the institution ostensibly created to redress the shoah.
Munich = Road Map, a PS
No comments:
Post a Comment